Website URL

Skype

Google Chat/Jabber

AIM

MSN

ICQ

Yahoo

Name

School

Biography

Location

Interests

Occupation

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/area.12045/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+and+related+systems+will+have+3+hours+of+downtime+on+Saturday+12th+September+2015+from+10%3A00-13%3A00+BST+%2F+05%3A00-08%3A00+EDT+%2F+17%3A00-20%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.
Thanks ahead of time

Home written Silvian Rhizomeatics Kritik. a UNIQUE post-structuralist/deleuzian take on curtailing surveillance.
Premise: Surviellance good because its a rhizome, state curtails that --> Microfascism. (controls all internal links to all impacts)
IM LOOKING FOR: Agabem backfiles, foucault backfiles, meta-ethic backfiles, Spanos backfiles, anything UNIQUE like a butterfly K or the lego K, etc.
No open ev stuff. ill know.
Just PM me

If anyone wants to go neg against this, please post here. Also, anyone who wants to judge please post paradigms. If we have an even number of judges, and it comes out to be a tie, the neg wins on presumption.
All of these views and no takers? I'm sad.
DnG nomads V9.5.docx

For the Buddhism K, I don't mean the economics shit on openev - I want the generic stuff with a link of desire. I have a lot of race/id pol stuff I cut that I'll trade. I'll take whatever is the easiest to understand and most applicable in LD for Psychoanalysis K.

When reading postmodern/higher theory K's like Baudrillard or Deleuze how have you all answered the "Materiality DA's/Links" that identity teams read against you. For example, if you were reading a Puar aff that defended fluidity, how would you answer things like "x bodies are still marked as abject, no racist white dude is gonna be the queer suicide terrorist/let go of entrenched identity categories".
Typically, my answers have just been "we solve broader aspects of violence b/c staticness is the root cause of all impacts" and stuff like try-or-die, but I'm in desperate need of better responses to this, thanks.

I'm writing a cap K and need a queer theory link (It's a common LD aff for this topic) and came across the card below (Excuse the formatting). What exactly is it saying? What's the warrant for how capitalist goals are furthered? While concentrating on decentering identity, queer theory succeeds in promoting the goals of global cap that work against the formation of communities or provide the means to destroy those that already exist.Kirsch 6
Max Kirsch (PhD from Florida Atlantic University). “Queer Theory, Late Capitalism and Internalized Homophobia.” Journal of Homosexuality - Harrington Park Press - Vol. 52 - No. ½. 2006. pp. 19-45.
Jameson has proposed that the concept of alienation in late capitalism has been replaced with fragmentation (1991, p.14). Fragmentation highlights the it also becomes more abstract: What we must now ask ourselves is whether it is precisely this semi-autonomy of the cultural sphere that has been destroyed by the logic of late capitalism. Yet to argue that culture is today no longer endowed with the relative autonomy is once enjoyed as one level among others in earlier moments of capitalism (let alone in precapitalist societies) is not necessarily to imply its disappearance or extinction. Quite the contrary; we must go on to affirm that the autonomous sphere of culture throughout the social realm, to the point at which everything in our social life–from economic value and state power to practices and to the very structure of the psyche itself–can be said to have become ‘cultural’ in some original and yet untheorized sense. This proposition is, however, substantially quite consistent with the previous diagnosis of a society of the image or simulacrum and a transformation of the “real” into so many pseudoevents. (Jameson, 1991, p. 48) The fragmentation of social life repeats itself in the proposal that sexuality and gender are separate and autonomous from bureaucratic state organization. If, as in Jameson’s terms, differences can be equated, then this should not pose a problem for the mobilization of resistance to inequality. However, as postmodernist and poststructuralist writers assume a position that this equation is impossible and undesirable, then the dominant modes of power will prevail without analysis or opposition. The danger, of course, is that while we concentrate on decentering identity, we succeed in promoting the very goals of global capitalism that work against the formation of communities or provide the means to destroy those that already exist, and with them, any hope for political action. For those who are not included in traditional sources of community building–in particular, kinship based groupings–the building of an “affectional community . . . must be as much a part of our political movement as are campaigns for civil rights” (Weeks, 1985, p. 176). This building of communities requires identification. If we cannot recognize traits that form the bases of our relationships with others, how then can communities be built? The preoccupation of Lyotard and Foucault, as examples, with the overwhelming power of “master narratives,” posits a conclusion that emphasizes individual resistance and that ironically, ends up reinforcing the “narrative” itself.

Hello everyone! I'm new to this forum and I'm doing a presentation on the strategic application of accelerationism as a K. However, I'm very confused on the parts of the K and just the debate strategy in general. I'm kind of unclear on the four parts. Our novice teams are only running one K, and that's the cap k. Most of my knowledge is based on that (and a couple other varsity K rounds I flowed).
My current understanding of accelerationism is mostly based on the accelerationist manifesto, and it's that capitalism should be accelerated for the late benefits of technological evolution in order to create a future for a world threatened by the deterimental effects of capitalism, such as climate change and governmental problems. I think I understand the philosophy but I have no idea how it's run as a K. So here goes:
1. Link
In the cap k the aff links to capitalism which links to the impacts by supporting capitalist ideas, for example trade. However, accelerationism is about accelerating capitalism for the late BENEFITS. Isn't this good? Does that mean affs who don't support accelerationism are bad because they doom the world by not creating a new future? Idk.
2. Impact
The impact is good, right? Technological evolution to save a future. I don't really understand this part because the impact should be the undesirable effects.
3. Alternative
I guess this part is pretty clear, that the alternative is to accelerate capitalism in order to technologically evolve and save a world in danger.
4. Framework
Framework is how the judge should evaluate the round in my understanding, so in this case a possible fw could be the judge should vote for the team that creates a world post-capitalism.
This is all my understanding of accelerationism thus far. We aren't expected to run it or master it, but have a general understanding. It would be greatly GREATLY appreciated if someone could look over and help me in understanding the link and impact! Thank you very much!

I'm planning on writing my first biopower K for the new LD topic (I do LD), and need some help with the alt. Most of the alts I've seen are incoherent postmodern vocabulary or some bullshit like "vote neg". Whats the best alt to run to a biopower K (I'm cool with floating PIKs too)

This is the improved version of the DnG aff I posted in the critiques section. Feldsy if you're still up to be neg, go for it. if he's not, i REALLY need someone to go neg against this. Anyone willing to judge please do so if the previous judges are unwilling to, also anyone judging could you please post paradigms. (I don't want the neg to lose because you hate framework, and I don't want to lose because i go for theory or something. P.S. i took down the edited version to keep myself from using the updated case as answers to the 1nc/block, here's the original 1ac, sorry about the confusion
- Thanks, Payton

Anyone willing to judge, please post paradigms, if we have only 2 judges and it becomes a 1-1 decision, the round is neg on presumption.
Thanks,
Payton
P.S. if you're wondering why i'm running all of these rounds, its because i won't get to run it much in-state and so I need as much practice as possible running it. (Yes, even with camp.)
DnG Nomads v6.docx

Hello debate community, noticing that a few camps have put out nomads/pirate deleuze and guattari affs I was wondering what the best way to argue these types of cases would be. They avoid a lot of the usual neg args and even outright counter some important ones. Thank you for your help!